Comments on: The language of evolution http://skuds.org/2006/11/the-language-of-evolution/ "Please send me evenings and weekends" Mon, 21 May 2012 15:06:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Andrew http://skuds.org/2006/11/the-language-of-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-34395 Andrew Wed, 08 Nov 2006 11:00:52 +0000 http://skuds.co.uk/2006/11/the-language-of-evolution/#comment-34395 Yeah, it's tricky to find unambiguous language, but I guess that's what scientific terms are for. Tricky when trying to make an accessible documentary, I guess. Anything's better than March of the Pingwings, though. No mention of anything even vaguely related to evolution, there. Yeah, it’s tricky to find unambiguous language, but I guess that’s what scientific terms are for. Tricky when trying to make an accessible documentary, I guess.

Anything’s better than March of the Pingwings, though. No mention of anything even vaguely related to evolution, there.

]]> By: Skuds http://skuds.org/2006/11/the-language-of-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-33953 Skuds Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:43:57 +0000 http://skuds.co.uk/2006/11/the-language-of-evolution/#comment-33953 Maybe it is just me then... Chambers online does give the first definition of special as "<em>distinct from, and usually better than, others of the same or a similar kind; exceptional</em>" which is OK. The second definition is "<em>designed for a particular purpose</em>" which is the one which I was thinking of. I could argue that using a word like design as a convenient shorthand might well be convenient, but can leave people more receptive to the concept of purpose in evolution. Maybe it is just me then…

Chambers online does give the first definition of special as “distinct from, and usually better than, others of the same or a similar kind; exceptional” which is OK.

The second definition is “designed for a particular purpose” which is the one which I was thinking of.

I could argue that using a word like design as a convenient shorthand might well be convenient, but can leave people more receptive to the concept of purpose in evolution.

]]> By: Rob Glover http://skuds.org/2006/11/the-language-of-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-33942 Rob Glover Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:24:59 +0000 http://skuds.co.uk/2006/11/the-language-of-evolution/#comment-33942 I don't think David Attenborough need shy away from using words like 'special', or 'specialised' when describing niche evolutionary adaptations. I don't see a design inference in that wording. I'd rather he use straightforward words like those, the alternative - avoiding them - is surely to cede these words to creationists, who already leap gleefuly on the use of 'design' if anyone uses it as convenient shorthand to explain something in nature. I don’t think David Attenborough need shy away from using words like ‘special’, or ‘specialised’ when describing niche evolutionary adaptations. I don’t see a design inference in that wording. I’d rather he use straightforward words like those, the alternative – avoiding them – is surely to cede these words to creationists, who already leap gleefuly on the use of ‘design’ if anyone uses it as convenient shorthand to explain something in nature.

]]> By: E Bungle http://skuds.org/2006/11/the-language-of-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-33736 E Bungle Tue, 07 Nov 2006 09:35:53 +0000 http://skuds.co.uk/2006/11/the-language-of-evolution/#comment-33736 surely the hit and miss element makes it even more special? if he'd said purpose built then that is edging into creationism. surely the hit and miss element makes it even more special? if he’d said purpose built then that is edging into creationism.

]]>